Nick Coons Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Further evidence that the idea of a "free state" is an oxymoron: http://news.dinbits.com/2015/12/bitcoin-now-prohibited-in-state-of-new.html
dsayers Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Effective 1 Jan 2016. Somehow 31 Dec 2015 is safe, but come the very next day, they're allowed to threaten you because they said so. How will this even be enforced? Isn't one of the beauties of BTC anonymity?
J. D. Stembal Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Effective 1 Jan 2016. Somehow 31 Dec 2015 is safe, but come the very next day, they're allowed to threaten you because they said so. How will this even be enforced? Isn't one of the beauties of BTC anonymity? Any business accepting BTC as a form of payment will not be able to accept them from NH residents.
bitcoin Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Effective 1 Jan 2016. Somehow 31 Dec 2015 is safe, but come the very next day, they're allowed to threaten you because they said so. How will this even be enforced? Isn't one of the beauties of BTC anonymity? Bitcoin is not necessarily anonymous. This is a common misunderstanding and has caused a large rucus in the libertarian community. It is anonymous insofar as you can use techniques such as generating new public keys for every transaction as well as "shapeshifting" your currency; but it is on a public ledger so if anyone discovers you are the owner of a public key, they can track every transaction of that coin. Does that make any sense? Regardless, what it will mean is that businesses can no longer accept and transact in bitcoin -- legally -- which is actually quite unfortunate.
Nick Coons Posted December 8, 2015 Author Posted December 8, 2015 Effective 1 Jan 2016. Somehow 31 Dec 2015 is safe, but come the very next day, they're allowed to threaten you because they said so. Right, because that's how morality works. </sarcasm> How will this even be enforced? Isn't one of the beauties of BTC anonymity? To some degree, yes, but that depends on how one uses it. The block chain contains every single transaction between every BTC wallet that have ever existed, so the transaction history of every transaction is publicly available. If you post your wallet publicly for someone to transfer BTC to you, then every transaction to and from your wallet can be tied back to you (or at least to whatever information you used when posting your wallet online). Additionally, any commercial entities accepting BTC (like Newegg, Overstock, or Expedia) certainly wouldn't be anonymous. So legislation like this wouldn't prevent individuals from secretly transferring funds back and forth. And being strictly in New Hampshire it might not have much of an impact. But if it happens in larger states (like Calfornia), or in states where these companies are headquartered, or even at the federal level, it could very well hamper or even halt the adoption of competing currencies -- BitCoin could go the way of the Liberty Dollar.
ribuck Posted December 8, 2015 Posted December 8, 2015 Any business accepting BTC as a form of payment will not be able to accept them from NH residents. Did you read the linked article? Individuals in NH will continue to be able to send BTC to each other. Businesses will continue to be able to sell goods for BTC. But if an entity is in the business of exchanging dollars for BTC, they will need to apply for a license and follow certain rules (e.g. to maintain a certain liquidity ratio). Of course the regulations are undesirable and counter-productive, but let's at least discuss the real situation and not something imaginary. 1
Recommended Posts